How Bergoglio’s permanence means the apostasy of the Flock

From Rome has been ahead of many issues way before the general public confronted them. One of these regards the problem of having a man whom you think is the Pope be a man whom you know is a heretic.

From Rome answered this in an editorial of May 12, 2016, nearly 3 and a half years ago. Back then nearly no one took notice. It was too politically incorrect. But now many, having seen the unending monstrosity of Bergoglio who is willing to publicly slap and excoriate with the most foul language a woman merely for pleading for the help of fellow Catholics who were being persecuted by his Marxist allies in China, and his total lack of insouciance at the publication of a book by Pope Benedict on Celibacy, the barriers of non-think have, are or about to fall in the minds of the general populace.

Some readers have remarked that From Rome does not speak so much about the heresies or errors of Bergoglio anymore, but this is not because he has stopped, or that this publication finds them tolerable, but because the solution to the problem of Bergoglio is simple: Restore Benedict XVI because he was robbed of the Papacy, and we were robbed of his Pontificate!

In this editorial, written when the pretensions to the Papacy of Bergoglio were still commonly held, hope was held out for his repentance. But now after nearly 4 years, that is clearly never going to come about. Those still hoping for it, are deceiving the faithful.

Nevertheless, we share with our readers now in January of 2020, what we published in May of 2016, for your edification and thought, and to share with your fellow Catholics who are still struggling to understand Bergoglio and why the clergy are obsessed with remaining in communion with him.

How Bergoglio’s Permanence means the apostasy of the Flock

Rome, May 12, 2016 A.D:  There is no greater and more radical challenge for the Christian believer than to take another as his Master.

Indeed, Christians are recognized by the fact that they regard Jesus Christ, and Him alone, as their Master, in accord with the scripture verse, in which Christ condemned the religious leaders of ancient Israel, Matthew 23:10 ff:

10 Neither be ye called masters; for one is you master, Christ. 11 He that is the greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled: and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

Indeed, its very tempting, in today’s world in which truth is up for grabs and violent political clashes are being waged on all sides, for the Christian to take an “I’m ok, you’re ok” view, that is, a “get along with everyone” kind of attitude, in which truth does not matter, only co-existence.

The Loadstone of Hope

The only problem is, that there is a vast difference between the man who thinks Christ is a religious teacher and the man who is loyal to Christ no matter what.  First first regards Him as one might regard a philosopher:  taking the man’s teachings here and there, according to his personal tastes and likes, but not as a rule of life.

The second regards Him as the Incarnate Son of God, apart from Whose teaching No man on Earth can escape eternal and perpetual damnation in the fires of Hell.

As St. Augustine said, “If you believe what you like in the Gospel, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the Gospel you believe, but yourself.”

Indeed, what distinguishes the Christian from all other men is Hope.

Hope is that theological virtue least spoke of today, because in modern times a proper understanding and appreciation of it has been so attacked in the minds of men, that nearly nobody appears to have it or cultivate it or use it.

Hope is that theological virtue which puts full faith and confidence in the promises of God for those who keep them.  Its the most essential and key Christian virtue, given to us in Baptism, but cultivated only with good works.  If you do not really hope that God will reward you for fidelity to Christ, then obviously you will not be faithful to Him.  Likewise, if you think that you can manage for yourself the rules by which you will get into Heaven, there is no need for you to have hope in God’s promises, you can presume for yourself — a presumption which is both your ultimate self-deceit and the absolute guarantee of your own damnation.

All of this has an ecclesiological impact, that is, all of this effects the Church, what She is and your place in or outside of Her, who alone is the ark of Salvation, the Pillar of the truth, apart from AND outside of which no man woman or child can be saved.

The Temptation of Bergoglio

The great temptation presented by the election and presence of Bergoglio on the Apostolic Throne, then, is precisely this: the offer of a Church, of a Christianity, in which Christ is no longer The master, but merely a guide post from which one can wander here or there and remain a “christian” without fidelity and without the need to practice hope.

This temptation is offered the Cardinals, the Bishops, the priests, the religious and the laity, is offered thus to the whole Church, because in Bergoglio they have, without any shadow of a doubt, a man who does not believe in Christ as his Sole Master, who does not love or tolerate the Church as Christ founded it or gave it, does not suffer the rules the Apostles, the Faithful Disciples of the Lord handed down to us, and is filled with compassion and love for the traitor who sold Christ for 30 shekels of silver.

To have a public manifest heretic on the throne of the Apostle Peter, and tolerate him, presents for every true Christian, the opportunity of pretense, to keep the name “Christian” or “Catholic” without any more obligation to Christ.  Its the ultimate game-plan of Lucifer.

Either Bergoglio must Change or the Church has changed

Finally, if one were to accept this situation and the principles which erroneously lead to it, as have been briefly described here, it would be enough to end this article with the usual lament.  Because with faith it is possible to lament these things, but with hope it is not possible to tolerate them.  Nearly every author on the Internet today, and as far as we know, all the Cardinals and Bishops of the Catholic Church since April 8, 2016, the date on which “Amoris Laetitia” what released, do not have or are not acting faithfully to Christian Hope.

For the man with Christian hope, would declare and manifestly insist and demand that Bergoglio be canonically reprimanded, and if refusing 3x, be declared to be in open schism with Christ and His Church, and self-deposed by reason of his malice and heresy against Him and His Bride, the Church, whose first duty is to keep herself immaculate and worthy of Him.

Either Bergoglio must change or the Church has in fact changed, because if he repents, the Church is saved in Her fidelity to Christ, and Christ is glorified above all human whim, even the human whims of the Roman Pontiff. But if Bergoglio does not change AND the Church tolerates him, it is the Church which has changed, She has committed adultery with Bergoglio, accepting him rather than Jesus Christ as Her spouse, the God above all other gods…


CREDITS: The featured image is of the Medieval Manuscript depicting The False Shepherd, a detail of the illumination from the mss. Douce 266 in the Bodleian Library. As a faithful reproduction of a work of art produced more than 200 years ago, it is in the public domain.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

With Globalist Censorship growing daily, No one will ever know about the above article, if you do not share it.

14 thoughts on “How Bergoglio’s permanence means the apostasy of the Flock”

  1. Bro. B–awesome post and picture. That is precisely the danger of Bergoglio–his aim is to lead as many people to Hell as possible. Destroying Holy Mother Church is one and the same–his other main aim.

    I’d suggest “insouciancy” may not be the right word but rather the unbridled fury and rage and hatred of Benedict who would dare raise his voice against these plans by defending the sacred priesthood. Pope Benedict knows all too well that no priests means no sacraments. Hence Pope Benedict’s repeated interventions on behalf of the holy priesthood–sacred orders–even from his exile within the Vatican walls. For example, his April 22, 2019 intervention pleading to eliminate the root cause of the child-abuse pederasty plague–homosexuality in the seminaries and by clear and unmistakable extension–the bishops. Who run the seminaries and thus wrecked them in the first place.

    Great picture. Thank you. God bless and protect you, and so toothe Virgin Mary!

  2. My guess is that Bergoglio is having a minimal effect of the faithful who were not in bed with his Progressive thinking in the first place.

    Though one counter point to that thought. Shortly after the “pope” simplified the annulment procedure our Rector was “pleased” to announce that annulments in the diocese had risen 25% from a year ago. Since that time there has been no bragging by our Rector concerning Bergoglian programs to “help” the faithful.

  3. This is so true. What pains me most about this is that those who should know better (SSPX) are insisting that Bergoglio is pope. Why they can’t admit the possibility that he may be an antipope is bewildering. We starting assisting at their Masses as we saw in them a lifeboat from the modernist storm. Now, not so much. The silence is deafening.
    The mental gymnastics necessary to maintain the false base premise of Bergoglio as pope must be quite exhausting. Not to mention disingenuous.

  4. It’s amazing how far apostates will go to keep their subjects and followers under them. A few months ago, I sat in a talk that was given by an “Abbot” who preached about unwavering obedience to “Pope Francis” and went to the extreme of using examples of various saints who remained obedient even unto tyrant and heretic superiors for the sake of growing in humility, obedience and fidelity to Christ. The Abbot criticized Catholics who referred to Bergoglio as anything less than their “Holy Father”. He went as far as saying that any disobedience to Bergoglio was disobedience to God himself. Many prelates, superiors and spiritual directors love to use the “obedience” yellow card on lay Catholics, especially lay “leaders” who are under the gun to bring in monies and numbers to their apostolates and ministries. They don’t realize that this sort of blind, servile, impossible “pay, pray and obey” mentality is known as “fideism”. These superiors ought to get themselves a copy of St. Thomas Aquinas’ Treatise on Obedience and kick Bergoglio in the butt. They are blind leading the blind, serving men before God, not God before men.

    1. It is their habit of mind, set on default. Because they never had to consider the possibility of an anti pope, their knee jerk reaction in such a case, makes them look and act like jerks.

  5. Br. Bugnolo, in light of Em S’s comment, would you expound on the difference between blind obedience and faithful obedience and how a Catholic does not become protestant not only in discerning the difference between the two but acting in true obedience as a member of the Church Militant? Recognize and Resist has come to a dead and deadly end. What is the remedial detour?

    1. How can I improve upon Saint Thomas?

      Here is a short explanation. Obedience is an act which falls under the virtue of justice. So obedience is never owed if what is asked is unjust. So you do not owe obedience except to legitimate superiors, commanding legitimate things in a legitimate way. The error of Nazism or Islam or the Lodge is that they make obedience an absolute virtue, which exists above the order of justice or morality. This false notion of obedience is the hallmark of every cult. And Since Bergoglio is a cult leader par excellence, and since the Anti church will be a cult, they must necessarily adopt and enforce this false obedience. This is the false obedience used to implement Vatican II, because nearly nothing in that Council was just. To know what is just we must have recourse first to Divine Revelation, where the truths which are the principles of discernment in all matters of justice are found.

      1. You can’t. LOL Thank you for the short explanation. Directions about the discernment of what constitutes ‘legitimate’ would be next in line. Sorry, if this is pesky. I’ve not found clear direction on these points yet that don’t seem Protestant.

      2. The Licit is what is morally permissible. The legal is what is allowed according to a law. The legitimate is what is done according to a right granted to or inherent in the subject acting. — Though many dictionaries in English get these definitions wrong.

  6. This short discussion on “obedience” with Islam_Is Islam is timely, relevant and very important.

    I find myself adrift. I wish to be obedient; became Catholic in order to be obedient to the Hierarchy leading to Christ; which Hierarchy is now leading me away from Christ.

    So, thank you for this. I am going to print this and internalize it.

    I suggest this be put to the forefront by all Pastors who may be reading this on behalf of the Faithful. There is much confusion on this topic, driving basic errors in the Faith.

  7. Regarding the above comment about idolatry and priestly institutes… if we are assisting at SSPX Masses, where they say (inaudibly) “Francis” instead of Benedict in the canon, are we being idolators as well, just because we are there? I know that Ann Barnhardt mentioned that she will say “Benedict” instead of Francis, during this point of the Mass.
    It seems like all these TLMasses are “directed” towards the apostate church (if I can call it that) with the antipope as their head. I know “directed” isn’t probably the best choice of words.
    I suppose what it boils down to is this: what effect will it have on our souls if we are assisting at SSPX Masses which names the antipope instead of the real pope, if naming the antipope as the head of the church is idolatrous (as mentioned above)? [I hope that makes sense, sorry.]

    1. The Traditional Latin mass is very explicit, unlike the Novus Ordo. It is offered una cum the Pope. If you name an Antipope, then the Mass is not offered in comunion with Jesus Christ. And that is a grave crime. If the Antipope is a heretic, satanist, or marxist, or false prophet, then the crime becomes an even more enormous sin. To knowingly offer the Mass in communion with an antipope is a mortal sin and a canonical crime of schism. It makes the mass no more efficacious than the mass of a Schismatic from the Byzantine empire of old. It is a serious thing.

      In the Novus Order, in many translations, this problem, thankfully, does not occur, because the Mass is not offered una cum. For example, here in Italy, the pope receives a prayer in the Canon after the consecration, in the manner that the Emperor received a prayer in the Old Mass. Such a prayer does not make the Sacrifice schismatic, if the priest does not know he has been fooled, or even if he knowing supports an antipope. But the bigger problem remains in both. If the priest is following Bergoglio he is doing something gravelly wrong. All Catholics know that you cannot be in communion with a heretic. All Catholics should know that heresy excludes you from the Church ipso facto. However, I can tell you from experience of having been in minor seminary and at Pontifical University, the knowledge of the faith is very poor even among professors and students. I do not think that most priests even know or care to know, that heresy puts you outside the Church. They are even being taught that the concept of Church includes non Catholics, non Christians and non monotheists.

      So I can answer the question about the Latin Mass for you, but not knowing what the vernacular mass in your country says, I cannot answer your question.

      The priests who say the Old Mass have a greater responsibility here, because their faithful come to them for right doctrine and are not deceived by the errors of the Aggiornomento. I am not a priest, but personally, I would judge that I was going to hell if I offered the Mass for Bergoglio as the Pope. As a layman hermit, I would rather be crucified than to deny Pope Benedict. So I cannot excuse priests who name Bergoglio in the Mass, even though nearly all are doing it. As I said in it is our duty to convert the Clergy back to the faith and back to the observance of allegiance to Pope Benedict. If we only worry about where we should go to mass personally, then we will lose the mass, because what we should be doing is converting the clergy back to the faith so that all have the mass.

Comments are closed.